From the Archive (2000): The People's Theater (1935-1939)

Billy Schraufnagel

Theater St. 111b

Amy Rogoway, TA

March 2, 2000

The People’s Theater (1935-1939)

In 1935, Harry Hopkins, director of the Works Progress Administration (WPA), asked Hallie Flanagan to lead the first government-sponsored theater in American history. Hopkins’ goal was the employment of approximately 10,000 actors, directors, stage hands, technicians, dancers, musicians, and other theater artists who were all on government relief. Flanagan’s ambitions stretched beyond the government’s aim. She saw government funding and the large pool of available workers as the opportunity to create a truly American theater: an artistic force that would be accessible to all Americans, appeal to all ranges of taste, nourish all manners of performance artists, and strengthen public participation in democracy.

The years 1935-1939, when Federal Theater was in existence, saw intense American interest and action in politics. Disillusioned by economic collapse, many called on the government to become increasingly involved in the personal affairs of American citizens. The Federal Theater was part of the government’s response to that call for aid. From its very inception, the Federal Theater was a political entity highly concerned with politics. Flanagan saw theater as a social “necessity because in order to make democracy work the people must increasingly participate; they cannot participate unless they understand; and the theater is one of the greatest mediums of understanding” (quoted from Buttitta, 232). This ideal was behind one of the most powerful and controversial innovations of the Federal Theater Project: the Living Newspaper.

Living Newspapers combined investigative journalism and academic study of a social problem into a unified theatrical experience that aimed to objectively represent that social problem on stage. This would be an effective means to create public awareness and indirectly increase public participation in government, as Flanagan writes, “our theater to be worth its creation by the government must at times concern itself with the aim of our government– a better life for more people.” (Flanagan, 211). A tremendous amount of research went into each living newspaper and great care was taken to ensure correct representation: “All of them [the living newspapers] were carefully read by a great many people and always by authorities in the field under discussion,” writes Flanagan in her memoir, Arena (p. 72). On the payroll of the project was a “living newspaper unit,” based in New York, whose sole purpose was to do research for potential playwrights.

One-Third of a Nation was one of the most celebrated of the living newspapers. Partly inspired by Roosevelt’s second inaugural address, the play examined housing conditions in New York City specifically, although it acknowledged that similar conditions existed around the country. With a crumbling tenement facade as the set piece, the play begins by depicting a fire in which several people die, an event that actually occurred in the New York slums. The play approaches the issue from several angles. One sequence explicates the history of how a handful of New Yorkers came to accumulate the majority of the land, while the majority of people were forced into filthy, cramped living conditions. Another scene describes a fictional family of four as it struggles through the day-to-day realities of poverty. Yet another scene exposes the economic reasons for poor housing. Each individual is driven by profit motives, all at the expense of the poor tenant. The play then turns to Congress– politicians in the play speak the words that are on the congressional record as actual speeches delivered. The culmination of the play is both an indictment of the “system” and a call to action, by the government to provide more public housing and for the public to demand housing.

One critical strength of the play, and of the living newspaper format, is that it attempts to join the government and the governed through conversation and mutual understanding of a common problem. One-Third of a Nation seeks to present lawmakers with an accurate representation of housing conditions and to arouse pity within them through the fictional characters. At the same time, the play represents the economic and structural difficulties in remedying the situation, most likely for the benefit of the belabored slum-dweller. If the lawmakers feel pity and understand the depth of their constituents’ plight, and the common people understand the complexity of eco-political forces at work preventing a solution, the first step has been taken to open communication. This is the ideal upon which democracy is built: true representative government. The real problem behind poor housing in this country is simply “inertia” according to one of the characters in the play. People research, report, investigate, and interview, but no action is taken. The living newspaper puts facts and reports on housing conditions to the immediate and magical action of the theater, and all of a sudden the facts become tangible and emotional and the conclusion becomes feasible.

As the radical politics of the New Deal engendered right-wing backlash, the Federal Theater attracted many enemies right away, especially directed at the living newspapers. Federal Theater tried to break the inertia of injustice and poverty in America. Those who favored the status quo, the moneyed interests for example, resisted Federal Theater. Other enemies included government officials who objected to what they saw as negative portrayal of American Senators. To this Flanagan replied, “If Senators and Congressmen oppose an increase in appropriations for housing and say so in Congress why should they object to being quoted on the subject?” (Flanagan, 221).

In the end, however, Federal Theater was the casualty of a larger political battle. Superpatriots and other right-wing extremists viewed anything that questioned the status quo as Un-American and Communistic. The New Deal had many enemies, and the Federal Theater was a vulnerable target, as an arts program: “She [Flanagan] could only conclude that its end was a political gesture by Washington to appease the growing conservative forces against the New Deal’s liberal social program” (Buttitta, 230). The Federal Theater’s funding was cut off in 1939, and many of its members labeled Communists. Many people who worked on the project for even part of its existence were blacklisted in the following decades.

The Federal Theater project was born from radical politics, died from reactionary politics, and some of its most dynamic and innovative theater concerned politics. As a social force, the project employed thousands, developed a generation of theater artists, and educated the public through performance. As a theatrical force, it excelled even greater: it developed a nationwide theater audience and laid the groundwork for regional theaters across the country; it revitalized the theater as an entertainment opposed to radio and motion pictures; it developed and made visible blacks and women in the theater in huge numbers. Never before or since in this country has theater been such a hotly debated topic in Congress (and perhaps in the national consciousness) as it was during the time of Federal Theater (Buttitta, 232).

Although extremely disappointed by the eventual defeat of the Federal Theater, Hallie Flanagan was optimistic for theater in America: of the people who worked on the Federal Theater Project, she said, “They were the beginning of a people’s theater in a country whose greatest plays are still to come.” (Buttitta, 233). 61 years after Federal Theater closed its last show, we must now ask ourselves if she was right. Or more specifically, could Federal Theater and the living newspaper exist today as it did in the 1930s?

The first major difficulty in attempting to envision a modern sequel to the Federal Theater Project is a consideration of the circumstances out of which the original sprang. It was a time of great social and political upheaval and uncertainty. And while many actors today may be unemployed, the situation is nothing like the grimness of the Great Depression. It is therefore unlikely that the Government will sponsor a “people’s theater” on the scale of the Federal Theater Project without drastic social or economic changes. The public support of the theater is mainly centered in the National Endowment for the Arts, an organization that issues grants. This, however, is quite different from the centrally run Federal Theater Project, which viewed itself as serving the interests of the government as a government agency.

Flanagan’s vision of the people’s theater was tied directly to the organization of the Federal Theater as it existed: “such a nationwide theater could not function without government subsidy, Flanagan contended, because its scope was beyond that of private enterprise and commercial motives.” (Buttitta, 231). In other words, it is not profitable to charge admissions that are reasonable to the majority of Americans.

Certainly, our society is faced with troubling issues that could be well-served by a living newspaper. Our country is tending towards increasing complexity in its own institutions and its relationship with the rest of the world. This increasing complexity does not seem to correspond to any increased understanding by the American population. Quite the contrary, few Americans really understand the scope of our country’s extension and influence. But again we are faced with inertia, the same problem facing “Little Man” in One-Third of a Nation and Hallie Flanagan with her Federal Theater Project. The cost (in money, manpower, and time) of researching and producing a modern living newspaper would most likely require a source that did not expect much profit (i.e. the government). The government is not facing the armies of unemployed Roosevelt and Hopkins saw in the 30s, and so has no reason to sponsor a national theater. In addition, someone would inevitably be threatened by an ambitious and successful living newspaper– most likely someone in power who would have the power to prevent the government from funding it.

Representative Joseph Starnes, an Alabama Democrat, questioned Hallie Flanagan in 1938 on whether or not she viewed theater as a weapon. Her response was, “I believe the theater is a great educational force. I think it is an entertainment, I think it is an excitement. I think it may be all things to all men.” I can safely say it is rare to find any public figure in the history of our country express so beautifully and passionately the power of the theater. Theater is a weapon. Flanagan realized that mere education and knowledge is not enough to produce leaders and fuel our democracy. Our society and system of government ideally is based on a constant flow of ideas and growth through mutual debate and understanding. In other words, communication with our fellow man is the most important asset we can teach ourselves and learn from others. The art of theater trains individuals in communication, and uses them to open lines of communication within a society. The strength of our theater directly reflects the strength of our understanding of each other as human beings, which in turn determines our ability to help each other. The opportunity to cultivate this communication on a mass level lies within the grasp of our government today, as it did 65 years ago. All it needs is a push from inspired individuals who can follow in the footsteps of Hallie Flanagan– to break the inertia.

Bibliography

One-Third of a Nation by Arthur Arent. 1938

Buttitta, Tony and Witham, Barry. Uncle Sam Presents: A Memoir of the Federal Theater, 1935- 1939. University of Pennsylvania Press. Philadelphia: 1982.

Flanagan, Hallie. Arena. Duell, Sloan, and Pearce. New York: 1940.